A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[Alpine Joe]

There is also the important consideration that a reputation for being a player who is going to do everything possible to make a victory against him a pyrrhic one will make it less likely you are attacked in future games. People who roll over and go AI at the first sign of defeat make tempting targets. If you are a small nation but have the reputation of being hard to swallow, an aggressor might look elsewhere for targets. This community is small enough that you can to some extent learn other players' styles.

[atul]

Originally Posted by Alpine Joe

There is also the important consideration that a reputation for being a player who is going to do everything possible to make a victory against him a pyrrhic one will make it less likely you are attacked in future games. People who roll over and go AI at the first sign of defeat make tempting targets. If you are a small nation but have the reputation of being hard to swallow, an aggressor might look elsewhere for targets. This community is small enough that you can to some extent learn other players' styles.

Strange sentiment. One of the most disappointing games I played went so that each of the opponents I fought either went AI after the first setback or were really green. Nothing would've been more boring, the fun part of the game all spent killing AIs.

On the other hand, I know some people who like to hole up, burn the ground and whine for all the other nations to fight their fights for them. My current reaction is to weed those out before they can become strong enough to be actually able to hold out for long. After all, you need some heavy castling and magic for that strategy to work well.

But, to each their own.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by K

I mean, this is a game where you can totally set up a fake nation under an assumed name and double-team people and send yourself gems, items, and even mages; why even assume fair play is possible?

Because the people we play with aren't douchebags?

[K]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Because the people we play with aren't douchebags?

LOL. I know that's not true. :P

[Baalz]

I just wanted to clarify what I meant since its apparently a bit ambiguous. A bogus RP justification is "I'm playing Lanka, what did you expect when you attacked demons?". That's some BS. I do agree with Micah that diplomacy can certainly justify vengeful acts. If you violate a NAP, or bring a 5-1 dogpile then you can't really expect the recipient to give you a "gg".

[DonCorazon]

Pretty simple to me: play to win, and when it looks like you cannot win, play to last as long as you can, maybe things will change and your prospects will turn around. Remember one game where a player was immediately sieged and almost domkilled, but incredibly managed to slay the offending carrion dragon with a handful of units and despite the horrific start went on to become one of the leading contenders. Ironically, the aggressor in that game quit as soon as his pretender was killed.

I think if you follow those guidelines, you will pretty much be following everything Micah said e.g. you wouldn't give up your last VP since that would be suicide.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Micah

Scorched earth: Always alright to try and swing the current conflict/survive. Alright as a response to broken diplomatic agreements (NAP violations and the like) just to get revenge on the attacker. Alright in a grossly unfair conflict (e.g. 5 on 1 ganging). Not alright in other circumstances.

What I don't get is why you would include revenge as acceptable reason.
The only thing that you are going to get in that game is some emotional gratification, but then why not just be plain and say if it makes you happy ...?
Otherwise I can agree.

[Sombre]

I should probably just put 'I' there, not 'we'. I don't play with people who act that way. If they did I'd cease playing with them. In order to have a better idea of who I might like to play with, I don't find these discussions pointless at all. Micah for example - I disagree with him on some points, but I can see his rationale and would play with him, accepting that we have differences of opinion.

Evidently there are douchebags out there. Evidently.

[K]

Originally Posted by Sombre

I should probably just put 'I' there, not 'we'. I don't play with people who act that way. If they did I'd cease playing with them. In order to have a better idea of who I might like to play with, I don't find these discussions pointless at all. Micah for example - I disagree with him on some points, but I can see his rationale and would play with him, accepting that we have differences of opinion.

Evidently there are douchebags out there. Evidently.

But you'll never know if you are playing with those players because they will never admit that they do those things.

I mean, some people think I have a bad reputation even though I have never broken a pact or a rule set by the game I was playing in. My opposition to the removal of various parts of the game most often comes when someone is campaigning against some legal tactic I am currently using and that person is currently attacking my nation in a game.

Seriously. This discussion is pointless. Trying to add unenforceable rules to the game just cripples the honest players like me.

[Sombre]

You do have a bad reputation. At least in the circles I travel in. And your reputation /is/ what people think of you. If people 'think' you have a bad reputation then you do. But this is getting off topic. Fortunately since the discussion is pointless you won't be posting again and there won't be any risk of me going blind or having a nervous breakdown.